From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753967Ab3ART6P (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jan 2013 14:58:15 -0500 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:45771 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751118Ab3ART6N (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jan 2013 14:58:13 -0500 Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 20:58:06 +0100 From: Borislav Petkov To: Matthew Garrett Cc: "Gopalakrishnan, Aravind" , "rjw@sisk.pl" , Andre Przywara , "cpufreq@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Andreas Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers/cpufreq: Warn user when powernow-k8 tries to fall back to acpi-cpufreq and it is unavailable. Message-ID: <20130118195806.GA3252@pd.tnic> Mail-Followup-To: Borislav Petkov , Matthew Garrett , "Gopalakrishnan, Aravind" , "rjw@sisk.pl" , Andre Przywara , "cpufreq@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Andreas References: <20130111144940.GB21882@liondog.tnic> <20130111165054.GD10751@liondog.tnic> <4923C2DE085EEB4FAB1D375DD09D0BA6100CF170@sausexdag04.amd.com> <20130117115436.GA3853@pd.tnic> <20130118162347.GA31499@srcf.ucam.org> <20130118170755.GB4062@pd.tnic> <20130118190021.GD4062@pd.tnic> <20130118190659.GB16757@srcf.ucam.org> <20130118193656.GE4062@pd.tnic> <20130118193834.GA17734@srcf.ucam.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130118193834.GA17734@srcf.ucam.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 07:38:34PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 08:36:56PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > > Ok, how much can we rely on ACPI to have this ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_IO > > properly set on K8? Because the thing is, we want to use acpi-cpufreq on > > F10h onwards and leave powernow-k8 to K8s. > > SYSTEM_IO only supports single processors and was superceded in ACPI > 2.0. Are there any single-core F10h? Hmm, maybe some downcored creations, who knows? But actually, that doesn't matter: we want to exit early from acpi-cpufreq loading on K8 only so the check should simply be: if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_AMD && boot_cpu_data.x86 == 0xf) { pr_debug(...) ... } Yeah, I think that should work. I'll add your patch to the others and make a patchset to give it a run. If it looks good, we'll queue it for 3.9 so that it can see more testing. Thanks. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine. --